:ziplip: -------------------------------------- <----- that's me with my 10 foot pole not touching this topic!
But I found this interesting: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Back to the topic at hand. There seems to be the consensus here that to lose weight, you need to burn more calories than you eat. We know this as the law of thermodynamics. In that sense, calories are the same and, yes, "a calorie is a calorie". The tricky part, is that the nature of the food you eat, may effect the output part of the equation. In that sense, "a calorie is not a calorie" because the amount you burn may be impacted by what you eat. I think we are all actually agreeing without realizing and it's just semantics. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
For me the lil tiny effects the type of energy source will have on any calorie output is not gonna matter weight loss wise. If I have a 500 deficit I lose a lb if I have a 1000 deficit I lose 2 lbs (this is weekly) . We're not gonna have an exact number of total calories burned every day or total takin in every day its just a best guess. for example we're not gonna know if we burn exactly 2136 calories a day and ate exactly 1488. We aim for closest to it and for me my results are usually spot on with my best guess for what I burn on average regardless of the types of food I ate
|
John - You are right - its not as clear that RMR is affected depending on how you operationalize and define RMR. I guess I really meant total energy needs - that would include calculations for TEF. And for sure, EF is impacted by what you eat. But what you eat may have other influences as well.
I spent a long time doing research for my own personal gain and to heal myself - conventional diet wisdom just wasn't working for me - I'd cut calories and not see any loss so I decided to really go straight to the literature and learn all I could. I'm certainly no expert. And I know there is a lot of conflicting info out there. There is a pressing need for a lot more nutrition research and hopefully we will gain a lot more insight over the next ten years. I am actually enjoying discussing this - I hope no one sees it as a fight - I think its good for us to all learn from each other as much as we can. There may be places I am wrong. And like I said, the research and information on nutrition has a long way to go. Here are some sources for now. I have to get back to work, but can find better ones or discuss this further later. And in the interest of full disclosure, you can go to the nutrition literature and find support for just about anything you ever heard ..... this is why nutrition is so confusing and contradictory sometimes. " There is convincing evidence that a higher protein intake increases thermogenesis" http://www.jacn.org/content/23/5/373.short "Excessive consumption of energy appears to increase resting metabolic rate while fasting and very low calorie dieting causes resting metabolic rate to decrease." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2204100 |
Quote:
F. |
Quote:
F. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I didn't read every study in the first link there but I read the most promising one "Protein choices targeting thermogenesis and metabolism " and they measured TEF not RMR. The second study has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Increasing calories will increase RMR and lowering calories will decrease RMR. Not the same thing as macronutrient or specific foods. Short of a food acting as a stimulant or doing something like DNP where ATP is made less efficient I don't see how a macronutrient or specific food can increase RMR to any significant degree. Maybe I'm naive but the energy has to go somewhere right? |
Quote:
Freelance |
Quote:
Yeah, let's agree to agree. ;)F. |
Quote:
The other part of it has to do wtih compliance, protein being more satiating, insulin levels not creashing will have less effect on appetite etc. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:08 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.